DECISION This is an appeal against an Award dated June 18, 1974 by Sind Labour Court No. II, Karachi, in an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 (hereinafter called the 'Ordinance'). The facts necessary for disposal of the appeal briefly put are these. The respondent, Rashid Ahmed, was employed as a Stenographer on the 25th of June 1957 by the appellant, W. P. I. D. C. He continued as such till 1964 when he proceeded on leave to Dacca for forty days. He asked for extension of leave by 17 days which was granted. Thereafter, he again asked for leave up to lst of February 1965 which was also granted. Rashid Ahmed, however, was not content with this. He further asked for two months' leave on medical ground. He was called upon by the letter dated 26th February 1965 to produce medical certificate of the Civil Surgeon or Medical Officer of E. P. I. D. C. or resume duty at Karachi at once. He did not comply with the request. Another letter was sent on 9th of March, 1965 by the appellant to resume duty at Karachi immediately. This was acknowledged by the respondent but did not resume duty. Finally the appellant by their letter dated 8th of April 1965 gave final chance to resume duty within fortnight of the receipt of the letter.
An enquiry revealed that the respondent was working with Facto Limited, Dacca. His services were terminated on the 10th of June 1965 because of continued absence from service without leave. The respondent challenged the order of his dismissal by in the Court of Vll Civil Judge First Class, Karachi for a declaration that the aforesaid termination of his services was illegal and ultra vires and that he continued to be in service. He, however, did not ask for any consequential relief for being restored to service. The suit was decreed and appeal was dismissed as beyond the time of limitation. The appeal was not decided on merit.
2. An application under section 25-A was filed on the 20th of July 1972 before the learned Labour Court No. II, Karachi. Mr. A. G. Mohammadan, the learned Representative for the appellant contended that the application under section 25-A was not maintainable after about seven years of time.
3. Mr. Mohammad Shibh, the learned Advocate for the respondent, took a preliminary objection that no appeal lay. On the face of it there is not much force in his contention. If an application could be filed jn 1972 against a cause of action which arose in June 1965 when section 25-A was not on the Statute Book. It is noteworthy at the time when the services of the respondent were terminated relief, if any under the Industrial Disputes Ordinance, 1959 and Standing Orders Ordinance of 1960 were available. The remedy, if any, to the respondent lay under any of these two Statutes and not under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, ' i ' ; < i - i 196 Pakistan Labour Cashs 1975 4. If the respondent could make an application under section 25-A and an order having been passed thereunder it has to be appealable. The appeal can be disposed of on the short point of long delay of over seven years.
5. The learned Presiding Officer, it appears to me, has been influenced very much by the fact that the respondent has a civil Court decree in his favour and it must be given effect to. In the first place it is not for the Labour Court to give effect to a civil Court decree even if it can be executed. Moreover mere declaratory decree is not executable. The explanation that the respondent was pursuing his remedy in civil Court is not sufficient . explanation. Moreover he was dismissed for misconduct for absenting himself without leave. He was given many chances to join but he did not join. He must, therefore, bear the consequences of his failure to comply with the orders of the Management to resume duty. In these circumstances B 1 cannot permit the appellant to pay back benefits and to re-instate the respondent also. The appeal is allowed.